/m/charity

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I assume this is some sort of libertarian anti-humanity message, but I don't know who the "they" is.

They is the Astros (which was abundantly clear from the context). The Women's Center, as laudible as they might be, had no rights to get charity from the Astros, and now some other needy group will get the charity. Let's just see this as a boon to the at-risk youth of the Houston area, who now are the beneficiaries of the Astros largesse.

The Houston Area Women's Center helps individuals affected by domestic and sexual violence in their efforts to move their lives forward. We provide shelter, counseling and advocacy to support them in building lives free from the effects of violence. We seek social change to end domestic and sexual violence through community awareness and education. Our services are confidential and available to everyone.

Or more likely, they will never get around to helping this mystery 'other needy group' and no one will ever ask the follow up question.

Because the Astros have a history of cheating orphans, widows and homeless pets? They were doing something for the women's organization to start with, weren't they? And, by the way, if it happens that the Astros decide not to give any more money to charity this year, because their ticket sales are off and their television revenue is down, that is forbidden?

And, by the way, if it happens that the Astros decide not to give any more money to charity this year, because their ticket sales are off and their television revenue is down, that is forbidden?

The Astros are going to bank millions upon millions of dollars this year, despite a putrid ML team and poor attendance.

That said, I don't believe the Astros are obligated to give even $1 to charity. The point is that they should have notified the charity in question last year, not a month or two before the annual event.

That said, I don't believe the Astros are obligated to give even $1 to charity. The point is that they should have notified the charity in question last year, not a month or two before the annual event.

A brief search indicates that the gala has been held late July to mid August for the past three/four years, so more like two and a half to three months.

I'm not going to look up who on the team is married or whether one of the wives has always MC'd or organized it. It might have been after spring training that they had a meeting of who was going to be with the team and realized there weren't enough people or a handful of 20something small town girls didn't know what to do about it and told the team so.
At one time (mid 90's?) the A's and the Giants ended spring training by having a wives' game as a prelude to their game and even before roster final cuts the A's had to have some coaches' wives take the field.

Because the Astros have a history of cheating orphans, widows and homeless pets? They were doing something for the women's organization to start with, weren't they? And, by the way, if it happens that the Astros decide not to give any more money to charity this year, because their ticket sales are off and their television revenue is down, that is forbidden?

Are they going to go out of business? 0% chance. Are they going to lose money? Pretty much 0% chance. Businesses are supposed to be subject to the free market and go out of business. This never happens to MLB teams because of restraint of trade. Consequently, I hold them to a different standard.

But as public opinion on social media was turning against the Astros, the team released statements that questioned the integrity of the wives organization.

“While we were in the process of deciding on our new strategic focus, the Astros Foundation also reviewed details of the Wives Gala and its budgeting, culled from recent publicly available tax returns,” said Meg Vaillancourt, the team’s senior VP of Community Relations. “We learned that in recent years, in our opinion, it appeared far too much of the funds raised by the gala seemed to go towards expenses, rather than to the charity.

“As a best charitable practice, it is common to expect some 70 percent — or more whenever possible — of funds raised should go towards the charitable purpose people intended in supporting the event. In the case of the Gala, in recent years, it appears that a little more than half — and at least in one recent year, less than half – of the funds raised actually went to the Women’s Center.”

In the last available IRS filings, the Astros Wives Organization had $432,000 in contributions in 2011 and distributed $220,000 to the Houston Area Women’s Center. That’s 50.9 percent to charity. Most of the other money was used to fund the banquet and silent auction, which were held at Minute Maid Park and included fees paid to the Astros.

Hilarious. Taxpayer-funded stadium and they'll profit off the charitable event.

Because the Astros have a history of cheating orphans, widows and homeless pets? They were doing something for the women's organization to start with, weren't they? And, by the way, if it happens that the Astros decide not to give any more money to charity this year, because their ticket sales are off and their television revenue is down, that is forbidden?

Hey can you point out where anyone said the Astros should be forbidden from not contributing to the charity in question, or any charity for that matter? Or rather should commentary on business activity be forbidden? Any clarification would be helpful. Thanks in advance!

“While we were in the process of deciding on our new strategic focus, the Astros Foundation also reviewed details of the Wives Gala and its budgeting, culled from recent publicly available tax returns,” said Meg Vaillancourt, the team’s senior VP of Community Relations.

Vaillancourt joined the Astros last December. She just got around to looking at the team's biggest charity event?

She might be right about the charity being inefficient, but it didn't get more inefficient in the last six months.

***

I just want to say that bfan deserves a Primey for getting to the right of Joe Kehoskie on an issue :)

No, seriously, this might actually have happened because of the wives' organization falling apart due to there being only a few married players on the team now, most of them married to high school sweethearts or minor league babes who have no idea how to run charitable events or interest in doing so. I'd be interested to know the details of the organization's disbanding.

WJ - damm right i did
even told my sons no i did not want them to take me to the ballpark for mothers day - just as well, batting practice gets old after the 3rd straight inning

and shibal
do not kid yourself - there is not room for every woman who needs to come into a shelter and yes women are turned away. there is not unlimited money and that missing 250K ain't gonna be made up by jim EFF crane out of his 30+ mill profit this year

no, he's interested in all those - at risk - or something, "youth" who can be given a bunch of unwanted astros tix into the nosebleed seats near the RF and LF foul poles - yeah, that's the ticket

Did you go to their website? It's not just a shelter... it's a Women's Center, which means it provides counselling, children's court assistance, multiple hotlines for domestic violence, sexual assault, etc. My guess is that they have no fewer than 100 full-time employees given the large number of services they offer, which means each person is making an average of no more than 45K. Of course, that's probably skewed in that the people who run the place likely have strong backgrounds in business and organizations and likely make closer to $80-90K each and there are probably a lot of part-time people who make a lot less per year.

I realize no one has ever, ever shifted gears on fundraising, but spare us the outrage, okay?

When 50% of the effort by the Astros' wives group isn't going to the charity, find another fundraising vehicle. I happen to think "outreach" programs the stros are shifting to tend to be bs, and if was going to shift away from violence I would have aimed at something like hunger, but they're entirely within their rights, especially wrt an organization like the Center, which is hardly on the edge (something that would also make a difference to me, as would how well the problem is being dealt with around the area). As callous as it may sound, I've lived in towns where the last thing needed was one more homeless shelter. Hunger programs and rent subsidies were much better targets for charity dollars.

“While we were in the process of deciding on our new strategic focus, the Astros Foundation also reviewed details of the Wives Gala and its budgeting, culled from recent publicly available tax returns,” said Meg Vaillancourt, the team’s senior VP of Community Relations.

Vaillancourt joined the Astros last December. She just got around to looking at the team's biggest charity event?

She might be right about the charity being inefficient, but it didn't get more inefficient in the last six months.

Taxes typically aren't due until 4/15. It's not unreasonable at all for Vaillancourt to take a month to acquire and review the tax returns of a rather large foundation.

Not that surprising, they're not willing to spend that on the team. That's 1% of the Astros payroll.

Just to clarify, the event raised $250k, but the Astros did not pay $250k.

The two highest paid employees, the CEO and CFO, were paid $180K and $110K respectively.

And that's not really out of whack for what most orgnaizations pay their top CEO. People tend to look at the salaries of charitable organizations, but the best run organizations pay their CEOs a decent wage because if you pay peanuts, you'll get a peanuts operation.

But as public opinion on social media was turning against the Astros, the team released statements that questioned the integrity of the wives organization.

[...]

In the last available IRS filings, the Astros Wives Organization had $432,000 in contributions in 2011 and distributed $220,000 to the Houston Area Women’s Center. That’s 50.9 percent to charity. Most of the other money was used to fund the banquet and silent auction, which were held at Minute Maid Park and included fees paid to the Astros.

(1) Although it could be read as questioning the integrity of the organization, it could also simply be read as questioning the efficiency or competence of the organization. Not surprisingly, the media chose to pick the more sensational interpretation.

(2) Reviewing some of the AWO's Form 990s, this is not an organization whose funds are being used to lavishly pay officers or anything; in fact, they don't. The expenses for this event do seem rather high, but that may simply be because fancy fundraisers are inherently inefficient ways to raise money. Part of the problem may be that, years ago, the event brought in a lot more money -- it's been hovering around $400K the past few years, but it was more back in the mid-2000s -- and the costs may be mostly fixed. So as the money raised drops off, the charity gets less efficient.

It's hard to see exactly how they're spending that much; the charity's expenses are: $81K for the banquet itself (food). $73K for the auction, $26K for "consulting," and $23K for "all other expenses." If they're actually giving money to the Astros, that seems pretty scummy -- but on the part of the Astros, not the charity. The Astros should be donating whatever goods or services are at issue, since the whole point here is PR for the Astros.

In the last available IRS filings, the Astros Wives Organization had $432,000 in contributions in 2011 and distributed $220,000 to the Houston Area Women’s Center. That’s 50.9 percent to charity. Most of the other money was used to fund the banquet and silent auction, which were held at Minute Maid Park and included fees paid to the Astros.

Certainly sounds like the charity is paying to have the event at the stadium.

Unless charities have a one-year lag in their tax filings, it appears you refuted your own point:

I am assuming Vaillancourt made the decision after reviewing the current filing from the Astros Wives Organization. This from a different article:
“The Gala was never an Astros or Astros Foundation event; it was previously hosted by a prior Wives organization, which is no longer active because there are no current Astros wives involved with the organization. From the last state filing we viewed, there was only 1person listed as director and her husband is no longer with the Astros, having departed from the team last year. The other person listed on the publicly available tax forms on file was a paid consultant, who received a portion of fees raised by the Gala each year.

As with most MLB teams, the current Astros wives are very generously working with the official team charity, the Astros Foundation, the Astros nonprofit that seeks to harness fans and sponsors interest in baseball to make positive changes in our community for at- risk and low income youth. Most charities seek to make a greater impact by choosing a strategic focus. This past off season, the Astros Foundation selected a strategic focus: to serve at-risk youth through our cornerstone youth baseball and softball programs.”

From the last state filing we viewed, there was only 1person listed as director and her husband is no longer with the Astros, having departed from the team last year. The other person listed on the publicly available tax forms on file was a paid consultant, who received a portion of fees raised by the Gala each year

I don't really understand what they mean by this. So what? They'll only work with charities who have a spouse working with the Astros?

This past off season, the Astros Foundation selected a strategic focus: to serve at-risk youth through our cornerstone youth baseball and softball programs.”

This part seems to render the rest of the statement in #52 moot. If the Astros made the decision in the offseason, the announcement came rather late. And if the Astros decided that "at-risk youth" would be their "strategic focus," then there was no reason to impugn the integrity and/or efficiency of the event/charity in question.

I don't really understand what they mean by this. So what? They'll only work with charities who have a spouse working with the Astros?

I think we are getting confused, or talking past each other at least, there are two organizations in question - the Astros Wives Organization that put on the gala and which has been disbanded after their current tax filing revealed there were no Astro spouse members; and the Houston Area Women's Center, which I assume is still in business.

I don't really understand what they mean by this. So what? They'll only work with charities who have a spouse working with the Astros?

What seems to be happening is that the Astros were giving money to the Astros Foundation which was giving money to the Astros Wives Organization which was raising money for the Women's Center through a gala (and said gala's costs included facilities fees being paid to the Astros), but now the Astros are cutting out the Astros Wives Organization because there are no wives? And thus there will be no gala? I actually lost myself there.

It doesn't make much sense to work with the Astros Wives Foundation if there are no Astros wives involved, does it?

The Astros have the right to decide where their charity dollars go, just like any other business. I I donate to charities that my employees are involved. I don't donate my limited budget to groups that I don't have a connection with.

I guess I still don't see why the Astros Foundation can't assist with the gala, but I don't know what kind of resources the Wives Organizations had to do to assist with this gala.

The Astros have the right to decide where their charity dollars go, just like any other business. I I donate to charities that my employees are involved. I don't donate my limited budget to groups that I don't have a connection with.

No doubt the Astros feel the same way.

Sure, but no one is arguing the Astros don't have that right. They're arguing with the decision. Teams work with charities all the time that they don't "have a connection with." I'm not sure what connection for example, the Astros have with "at-risk youth."

My SO used to work for a local social services organization (which ran, among other things, a food bank and shelter.) They ran some events similar to these, notably a large luncheon with a well-known guest speaker, and a silent auction.

These "galas" weren't terribly efficient ways of raising money; a lot of staff hours were required for planning the event, and the charity still had to pay for food, space, guest speaker fees, etc. I'm not sure if they did it at reduced rates, but it was never free. I can ask her if she knows, but from what I remember, the charity keeping 50% sounds about right. My cynical opinion was that they were more about the wealthy being seen supporting a charity rather than the charity itself.

One charity I support had an open house, which was decided low-key (food from one of the supporters and Costco, relatively inexpensive wine/beverages, held in their offices); that made me happy.

These "galas" weren't terribly efficient ways of raising money; a lot of staff hours were required for planning the event, and the charity still had to pay for food, space, guest speaker fees, etc. I'm not sure if they did it at reduced rates, but it was never free. I can ask her if she knows, but from what I remember, the charity keeping 50% sounds about right. My cynical opinion was that they were more about the wealthy being seen supporting a charity rather than the charity itself.

I think that last bit is wrong, but whether or not you agree with me, I'd still argue that it's irrelevant. The point of the gala isn't to raise money in the most efficient way possible, it's to capture the donations of the people and companies that wouldn't otherwise give to your cause. Even if they're only clearing 50% in "profit," the point is that a gala is a good way to capture that particular pool of money. Companies buy tables and invite clients. Wealthy individuals buy tables and invite friends. They would not, necessarily, be giving that money to your organization in the absence of the event. Is an event losing money? Does it cost $50,000 to run and is only netting you $5,000? Absolutely, that's a crap event and a waste of everyone's time and money. But well-run events of this type can bring in enormous amounts of money.

But to the sort of morals of it all, I really don't see any problem with people enjoying getting together over fancy food and drinks in support of a cause they care about. I personally don't pay for these types of things but go for free frequently (my company pays).

So I talked with my SO, giving her the 50% number, and she said that it was about right. The charity has gotten rid of many of their galas. The only galas I've been to was when my SO invited me, and I got the impression that it was never really about the charity. I'd rather not go into details but this is something my SO agrees with.

Perhaps the wealthy wouldn't be buying tables for themselves and friends if it wasn't for the gala, but I'm one of those people who gives because of the cause.

I then outlined what happened here (charity gets pretty short notice about an event cancellation and publicizes it), and asked what she thought. Her opinion was (a) the Astros weren't right to give such short notice, and (b) the charity naming them in the press was pretty tacky.

This was apparently one of the bigger charity events in Houston and it had been held for years. If the Astros thought it would just go *poof* without attracting any media attention, they need a new p.r. staff.

Jmurph: you also have to factor in opportunity cost. If you spend all your resources on the gala, you can't spend them on potentially-more lucrative fundraising.

Fair point. Though the counter to this is that sometimes those gala attendees turn into big individual donors (or corporations move from buying a table for $10,000 to sponsoring at a higher level). In fact that is usually the job of individual giving managers- turn those people into regular donors.

I don't mean to suggest these high-dollar fundraising events are a universal good. Many smaller organizations should probably not get too bogged down in them. I'm just saying that some people's reflexive notion that "it's expensive/not maximally efficient, therefore it can't be a net good" is not true in many cases.

The point of the gala isn't to raise money in the most efficient way possible, it's to capture the donations of the people and companies that wouldn't otherwise give to your cause.

Exactly right. Its like dinging the Yankees for not winning in the most efficient way possible. Who cares? They won a championship. That's the goal. And the goal for a charity is to raise money. If you can raise a $100,000 by spending $50,000, that sure beats raising $2,000 by spending $50.

Except a lot of the costs are fictional. In some cases the party throwers are simply paying themselves to throw the party and while that in and of itself is not necessarily wrong paying yourself and your friends an excessively high salary to do it is probably wrong.

Except a lot of the costs are fictional. In some cases the party throwers are simply paying themselves to throw the party and while that in and of itself is not necessarily wrong paying yourself and your friends an excessively high salary to do it is probably wrong.

I'm not sure who it is you're talking about being paid a high salary to throw a party. The CEO of Women's Center? I'm pretty sure her job requirements are far beyond "throwing a party."

I don't really understand the stance that many seem to be taking here that it is wrong for people to enjoy themselves while donating to charity. Sure it would be great if people just gave to charity without requiring any expense. But that doesn't making throwing a gala wrong in my mind. It sure beats not giving at all.

The parties don't happen spontaneously. They get planned and people get paid to plan them. Then on top of that they choose the suppliers and how much they are going to get paid for their supplies. There can be a lot of graft attached to a charity which is why they came up with rule of thumbs when it comes to amount taken in versus expenses.

The parties don't happen spontaneously. They get planned and people get paid to plan them. Then on top of that they choose the suppliers and how much they are going to get paid for their supplies. There can be a lot of graft attached to a charity which is why they came up with rule of thumbs when it comes to amount taken in versus expenses.

This was apparently one of the bigger charity events in Houston and it had been held for years. If the Astros thought it would just go *poof* without attracting any media attention, they need a new p.r. staff.

According to who?

This list (generated by searching for "biggest charity events houston") has a list of all fundraisers in Houston that generated >$1M dollars in the first five months of last year. There were 21 of them. One resulted in $32 million raised!

Considering that this list was for half a year, and the fundraiser in question only raised a quarter million - I can't see how it was one of the "bigger events" at all.

This list (generated by searching for "biggest charity events houston") has a list of all fundraisers in Houston that generated >$1M dollars in the first five months of last year. There were 21 of them. One resulted in $32 million raised!

Considering that this list was for half a year, and the fundraiser in question only raised a quarter million - I can't see how it was one of the "bigger events" at all.

What percentage of all charity events in Houston do you suppose raise $250,000 or more? Higher or lower than 2 percent?

So an organization that doesn't have to throw an event but get simply handed a check still has an overhead of nearly 50%? What the hell are they doing with their money?

The AWO puts on an event and do they simply give all the proceeds to HAWC or do they take out expenses first? IF they take out expenses first then it looks like that by the time the people that actually needed it are only getting a quarter out of every dollar donated. That doesn't sound very good.

So an organization that doesn't have to throw an event but get simply handed a check still has an overhead of nearly 50%? What the hell are they doing with their money?

Huh? Who said the HAWC had overhead of 50%? The AWO -- that's Astro's Wives Organization -- is the organization that ran the event and had 50% overhead. They run the event, take out their expenses, and then mail the check to the HAWC. Why are you taking out an additional 50% on top of that?